Stop teaching pseudoscience in school

[_cksalmon]

The Dude likely showed you how the drafts of Of Pandas and People were rewritten to scrub creationism and its cognates for Design and its.

Yep. That was the one. It was tragicomic.

Chris

[_asbestosman]

I think the way science is taught in classrooms is fundamentally wrong. Science should not be some list of facts (data) and theories (models) that you memorize. Science should be about how to do science, not what to believe. Have kids make a hypothesis, do an experiment or gather data, and then get theories. Have them read the work of others and either find weaknesses in it or come up with further tests which may refute or refine the theories put forth in that work. Why can't we let kids discover for themselves how right or wrong Darwin was by helping them learn how to do research through experiments or reading articles?

[_The Dude]

I think the way science is taught in classrooms is fundamentally wrong. Science should not be some list of facts (data) and theories (models) that you memorize.

Science has generated a lot of knowledge over the years. In what classroom setting should kids learn about that knowledge, if not in science class?

Science should be about how to do science, not what to believe. Have kids make a hypothesis, do an experiment or gather data, and then get theories. Have them read the work of others and either find weaknesses in it or come up with further tests which may refute or refine the theories put forth in that work. Why can't we let kids discover for themselves how right or wrong Darwin was by helping them learn how to do research through experiments or reading articles?

That's good and all, but if they don't familiarize themselves with the current body of knowledge, then all you've done is teach them how to go out and re-invent the wheel. I think you have the right idea for a class called "Scientific thinking" or "How science works" but kids really do need to memorize a few facts and theories. How else will they know where to start asking questions?

[Guest]

That's good and all, but if they don't familiarize themselves with the current body of knowledge, then all you've done is teach them how to go out and re-invent the wheel. I think you have the right idea for a class called "Scientific thinking" or "How science works" but kids really do need to memorize a few facts and theories. How else will they know where to start asking questions?

Exactly. It's kind of difficult to formulate evolutionary hypotheses or experiments without a basic understanding of genetics. There has to be a starting point. Most good science courses have labs associated with them where students are able to carry out their own experiments and gain an understanding of how the scientific method works. Also, nearly every science course I took in college started with an overview of the scientific method and how it differs from other ways of knowing.

I have no reservations with ID if it is taught in Sunday School or a philosophy class or something. It's main flaw is that it isn't scientific (meaning it's not supported by the scientific method), so it doesn't belong in the science classroom.

[_asbestosman]

That's good and all, but if they don't familiarize themselves with the current body of knowledge, then all you've done is teach them how to go out and re-invent the wheel. I think you have the right idea for a class called "Scientific thinking" or "How science works" but kids really do need to memorize a few facts and theories. How else will they know where to start asking questions?

That is indeed an important point. I don't want kids to have to reinvent the wheel (that has caused me problems in my own persuit of knowledge in computer programming and mathematics due in part to misplaced pride). Still, I think there is a problem in that much of science for me was memorizing a bunch of theories and equations rather than understanding what data supported or refined the various theories. I want kids to know science so well that they can smell shoddy "science" when it gets close to them rather than dutifully memorizing it without any scrutinization. Maybe then memorization will continue, but not without the "scientific thinking" class and not without significant emphasis on how the theories were supported over other hypotheses and why gaps in knowledge aren't sufficient to overturn current theories let alone justify filling in the gaps with magic (perhaps a lab on analyzing magic tricks from a scientific point-of-view would be useful).

[_John Larsen]

I think the way science is taught in classrooms is fundamentally wrong. Science should not be some list of facts (data) and theories (models) that you memorize. Science should be about how to do science, not what to believe. Have kids make a hypothesis, do an experiment or gather data, and then get theories. Have them read the work of others and either find weaknesses in it or come up with further tests which may refute or refine the theories put forth in that work. Why can't we let kids discover for themselves how right or wrong Darwin was by helping them learn how to do research through experiments or reading articles?

This is the kind of stuff that happens in graduate school, actually. Why does it happen in graduate school? Because you are not ready to participate until you understand the fundamentals.

For example, there is some controversy in the basic theory of numbers that is taught in elementary school. Should we introduce 3rd graders to such high level criticism? Can you really discuss Einsteinian models of physics without first grasping Newtonian models?

In reality, science is a cumulative collection of data, theory and speculation. You are expected to understand all that came before and to try to introduce children into a criticism of science would be doing exactly what you are trying to combat--namely presenting information they are not equipped to handle.

[_John Larsen]

There is another problem. Take for example long division. Almost every high school educated adult can perform long division by hand. However, I doubt 1 in 1000 adults can explain why it works. Similarly, many adults can write down and use the Pythagorean theorem. However, there are very few would could derive it or prove it. In elementary school, they will teach you how to calculate the area of a square or a sphere. However, you have to know calculus to be able to explain why this works.

I think that it is clear that describing why science works or doesn't work is of several degrees more advanced than using the science productively. As a matter of fact, you really don't need to understand the mechanism to productively use science at all.

[_asbestosman]

I think that it is clear that describing why science works or doesn't work is of several degrees more advanced than using the science productively. As a matter of fact, you really don't need to understand the mechanism to productively use science at all.

True, but you need to know how it works to be able to reject pseudo-science. Still, I think that using scientific facts is more the area of technology or enginerring than science. I also tend to think that learning how to learn is more important than memorization. I'm a fan of open-book tests (you need to have a good understanding of the material to pass, but the specifics are on hand for reference so it's not about memorization).

[_asbestosman]

I have no reservations with ID if it is taught in Sunday School or a philosophy class or something. It's main flaw is that it isn't scientific (meaning it's not supported by the scientific method), so it doesn't belong in the science classroom.

But I want kids to know why. Heck, I'm all for teaching ID in the classroom if kids are sufficiently prepared to see its weaknesses and learn from that example why that isn't science (no, it's not just because it is strongly supported by religion / anti-materialists or seems to support the necessity of a Creator / Designer / God).

[_krose]

Ken Miller was on NPR Science Friday last week discussing this new strategy. It was a good show. If you want to listen, you can get it as a podcast from iTunes, or from npr.org.